ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on May 7, 2017 15:36:13 GMT
Best risk free savings account ( once all the current accounts have been maxed) is about 2%. You're getting a near 2% risk premium. Although you can get better from RS and Z and others that's still not bad for diversifying platform risk. How much of the poor IRR was down to cash drag as this is something that can and should be fixed.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 7, 2017 19:00:31 GMT
Seems to be 6.5 % after fees, but that isn't right either because fees are taxable so the rate before losses is lower depending on your tax rate.
|
|
fogey
Posts: 171
Likes: 104
|
Post by fogey on May 7, 2017 23:16:44 GMT
Seems to be 6.5 % after fees, but that isn't right either because fees are taxable so the rate before losses is lower depending on your tax rate. What you eventually get out of BM depends on who you are and how you use your account ... in addition to how well BM manage the platform of course ...
The most confusing parts of BM to most people are the multiplicity of interest rates, the investment deployment times and the overall deployment level, which can seem to take an eternity to reach 100%. There seems to be very little further clarification on what all these factors really mean to people as individual investors ... in order to achieve their particular financial goal.
Everyone has the same opportunity to use the scheme as they choose, but as I see it, there is only one way to get the very best results here ... and that is to reach a fully invested target amount as quickly as you can and then just leave it for as long as you can, with no further deposits or withdrawals ... (except perhaps very small amounts may be possible without jeopardising the potential long term returns too much ).
When the scheme is working as it is designed and there is never any shortage of new funds to replace those maturing within your account, then you will always be very close to full allocation and your daily rate of return will always be very close to the headline rate at the top of the summary page, before any associated fees or personal tax issues.
This rate has very little to do with detailed XIRR calculations, ramp up times and all the other variables that always confuse people, when they are trying to understand how well their account is performing. Once you remain fully invested, it is really the only future return figure that matters. Providing all the BM investment algorithms are set and operating correctly, this figure can prove to be very stable over time and thereby give a very predictable return.
To my mind it is the most important rate of all and is simply the annualised daily growth rate that I am enjoying, so every day my balance is increasing at a relatively predictable rate.
Unfortunately you need to compute this from the daily changes in your balance, which tend to go up and down like a yoyo because of the continual conversion of accrued to paid interest. But you can average this out with double smoothing algorithms (readily available on most spread sheet programs) and then it becomes evident within a matter of weeks. It then changes very little at all over the following weeks and months as the BM algorithms always constrain it in line with their pre-set target rules.
In this way I find my daily returns are around 7.5% to 7.6% pa, as they have been for the past 2 months now. They are always remarkably close to 1% below the headline rate at the top of my summary page. I conclude from this that the BM fee is the most dominant part of my total fee.
This makes nonsense of a (presumed XIRR) target rate of 7% of course, as it exceeds it. Even with the revised charges of 1.5%, it will still be very close to 7% for me. If my loan selection was blended in the same way as the platform rate, currently at 8.8%, then I would be enjoying a rate of 7.3% after fees of 1.5%. You will find it very difficult to beat this rate elsewhere for a fully managed hands off account.
So the other side of the coin is potential defaults and these can only be controlled through careful selection by the platform operator and then optimising the diversification as much as possible. As I understand it, these measures are currently the main focus of attention at BM.
I don't have any defaults yet and my current watchlist threat is slowly evaporating away, due to sporadic capital repayments on an ID loan and on-going refinance on a bridging loan (that really should never have been on the watchlist in the first place).
Once your funds are fully deployed at the end of the ramp up, the risk profile continues to improve with time, so that any future default threat eventually become fully diluted to your lowest concentration setting. Hopefully the platform should allow this to become even lower than 1% in time. It is something all long term investors are seeking of course.
I am not sure that a monthly withdrawal option makes much sense at the moment and certainly BM have rightly put this on the back burner, whilst they concentrate their efforts on minimising potential defaults and looking towards improving the diversification options. I think it might makes sense after you are fully invested for a year or more and your fund growth rate and risk factors have stabilised to allow a fairly predictable and consistent monthly return.
As regards feeding in a regular monthly amount, I think this should only be done if the regular deposit is a very small percentage of your total investment, so that it provides very little threat to your 100% deployment target. Maintaining full deployment and targeting maximum diversification over extended periods of time are the only ways to optimise any long term growth target.
Edit: For those that consider XIRR the only true way to calculate investment returns, my latest calculation gives a result of 6.5% which is still rising. Any losses at the moment are purely speculative but the data available at present indicates a figure of less than 0.67%.
|
|
yangmills
Member of DD Central
Posts: 83
Likes: 494
|
Post by yangmills on Sept 17, 2017 8:53:47 GMT
I made a small trial investment into BM starting in August last year. My deposits occurred between Aug-16 and Feb-17 and totalled £15k, whereupon I stopped further investment.
Crystallized losses are £210 so 1.4% of my original investment (on £210 of defaults, so a recovery rate of 0%). I have no current loans in default but around £1170 of loans on the watch-list. My current IRR is 5.22% (without the defaults it would be 6.76%). My current headline rate is 8.9%. Cash deployment rate was around 90-95% from Aug to Dec 16, dropped to 80-90% from Dec 16 to Mar 17 and has been 95%+ since Mar 17.
It's been a disappointing result but I will let the trial run for another 5-6 months (to total 18 months) to see if it the IRR can rise now that the deployment rate is higher or whether the higher fees and a slew of defaults will kill the return completely. Thankfully its only a very small amount of my investment portfolio so the opportunity cost is small.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 16:31:06 GMT
I made a small trial investment into BM starting in August last year. My deposits occurred between Aug-16 and Feb-17 and totalled £15k, whereupon I stopped further investment. Crystallized losses are £210 so 1.4% of my original investment (on £210 of defaults, so a recovery rate of 0%). I have no current loans in default but around £1170 of loans on the watch-list. My current IRR is 5.22% (without the defaults it would be 6.76%). My current headline rate is 8.9%. Cash deployment rate was around 90-95% from Aug to Dec 16, dropped to 80-90% from Dec 16 to Mar 17 and has been 95%+ since Mar 17. It's been a disappointing result but I will let the trial run for another 5-6 months (to total 18 months) to see if it the IRR can rise now that the deployment rate is higher or whether the higher fees and a slew of defaults will kill the return completely. Thankfully its only a very small amount of my investment portfolio so the opportunity cost is small. Thanks for the update, these kinds of updates are the most valuable as you've had money invested there a substantial amount of time. So would yangmills be in an extremely small minority of BM investors? I'm not being snarky - really, I'm wondering if this is true, since it would need to be surely for BM's stats on defaults and crystallised losses to be correct?
|
|
|
Post by propman on Oct 13, 2017 16:17:43 GMT
Thanks for the update, these kinds of updates are the most valuable as you've had money invested there a substantial amount of time. So would yangmills be in an extremely small minority of BM investors? I'm not being snarky - really, I'm wondering if this is true, since it would need to be surely for BM's stats on defaults and crystallised losses to be correct?Not sure how they get to their statistics unless they only recognised losses after the date of the update. They listed many more than 6 loans that were to associated borrowers (where they paid back to limit the losses when people were over exposed). After fees, defaults and crystallised losses, my net return is 10% of my gross interest. So smewnat below 1% return in just over a year.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Nov 5, 2017 12:08:46 GMT
Unsatisfactory. I prefer the clarity of RS where I can get 6.5%, provision fund and no mysterious 1.5% charge that no one knows if it is tax deductible or not.
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 5, 2017 13:18:36 GMT
Please talk me through your actual holdings (the loans and nature of them) that *you* are exposed to on RS... I'm not talking about their marketing. I mean actual positions you hold through RS - after all, it now has P2P (36h) permissions so you have to be named as a counterparty on some loan(s) out there. Or is it still the case that this isn't disclosed to lenders on RS, at all? I don't mind our service being compared to others, but falling down on clarity vs RS is funny.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Nov 5, 2017 14:49:40 GMT
Please talk me through your actual holdings (the loans and nature of them) that *you* are exposed to on RS... I'm not talking about their marketing. I mean actual positions you hold through RS - after all, it now has P2P (36h) permissions so you have to be named as a counterparty on some loan(s) out there. Or is it still the case that this isn't disclosed to lenders on RS, at all? I don't mind our service being compared to others, but falling down on clarity vs RS is funny. But RS have a provision fund, has no additional lender fees and have never lost any capital! None of which are the case for Bondmason. True we don't know who the underlying loan is too with RS, but the above seems a better bet than Bondmason, where not only do we not know who the loan is too, but we have no idea of which other platforms (and their stability or otherwise) you are exposing lenders too? The comparison may not be entirely fair as Bondmason seem to be targeting higher net worth individuals, but then I would expect these people to demand a higher return, whereas with RS I can start small and see if it does what it claims.
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 5, 2017 15:17:54 GMT
Please talk me through your actual holdings (the loans and nature of them) that *you* are exposed to on RS... I'm not talking about their marketing. I mean actual positions you hold through RS - after all, it now has P2P (36h) permissions so you have to be named as a counterparty on some loan(s) out there. Or is it still the case that this isn't disclosed to lenders on RS, at all? I don't mind our service being compared to others, but falling down on clarity vs RS is funny. But RS have a provision fund, has no additional lender fees and have never lost any capital! None of which are the case for Bondmason. True we don't know who the underlying loan is too with RS, but the above seems a better bet than Bondmason, where not only do we not know who the loan is too, but we have no idea of which other platforms (and their stability or otherwise) you are exposing lenders too? The comparison may not be entirely fair as Bondmason seem to be targeting higher net worth individuals, but then I would expect these people to demand a higher return, whereas with RS I can start small and see if it does what it claims. RS pumped £80m of equity in to prop up performance earlier this year (taking over three large, non-performing loans) otherwise the provision fund would have been wiped out 2-3 times. Please don't fall for that marketing.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Nov 5, 2017 17:41:11 GMT
Fact is they did and the PF didn't fail. Do you step in and compensate when loans go belly up for whatever reason? No, and I don't have a problem with that as long as the rates are high enough to compensate - achievable rates that is. Compare and contrast RS action with Zopa where disasterous risk assessment has resulted in punters going from an expected 6.5% in plus to sub 5% or very much worse. Did they step in and compensate for their gross incompetence? A resounding NO.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Nov 5, 2017 17:58:57 GMT
But RS have a provision fund, has no additional lender fees and have never lost any capital! None of which are the case for Bondmason. True we don't know who the underlying loan is too with RS, but the above seems a better bet than Bondmason, where not only do we not know who the loan is too, but we have no idea of which other platforms (and their stability or otherwise) you are exposing lenders too? The comparison may not be entirely fair as Bondmason seem to be targeting higher net worth individuals, but then I would expect these people to demand a higher return, whereas with RS I can start small and see if it does what it claims. RS pumped £80m of equity in to prop up performance earlier this year (taking over three large, non-performing loans) otherwise the provision fund would have been wiped out 2-3 times. Please don't fall for that marketing. Clever spin attempt! I assume you know full well the true story, but it's here just in case anyone needs reminding... www.p2pfinancenews.co.uk/2017/07/18/ratesetter-investor-wholesale/The fact is the strength of the RS business allowed them to access £ms of capital and remove the wholesale loans from investors and place them on their own books, taking both the full profit and losses themselves. The net outcome will likely not be published, but RS is still forecasting to be profitable, overall. The more interesting point raised by this episode was that the " Financial Conduct Authority confirmed that the practice may be in breach of the rules."
As I understand it Bondmason's business model is entirely based on lending to other (undisclosed) lenders, and therefore it seems to me that Bondmason will never be authorised by the FCA, hence I am avoiding the platform.
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 5, 2017 20:20:14 GMT
Fact is they did and the PF didn't fail. . Because RS probably would have had to wind up their business if they let the PF fail.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Nov 11, 2017 23:36:06 GMT
Yes, I'll stick with RS and AC and FC and a teaspoon of zopa...
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 1, 2018 7:50:25 GMT
Just calculated my returns over the last year came to 6% after fees (and small losses). Unfortunately I believe the fees are still not tax deductible, so a bit less than that. Is there any news on getting fees to be taken off in a way that makes them not taxable? Like every other platform!
|
|